STRATEGY DISCOURSES IN PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONS: A ... · Strategy discourses in public sector...

21

STRATEGY DISCOURSES IN PUBLIC SECTOR

ORGANIZATIONS: A QUALITATIVE FOCUS GROUP

STUDY

Christian T. Lystbaek, Jens Holmgren and Ole Friis

ABSTRACT

Strategic concerns have spread into public management and fueled the growth of

strategic practices. The purpose of this study is to examine strategy discourses in public

sector organizations. It describes how strategy is articulated and conceptualized with

reference to dominant strategy discourses and identifies the structural tension between

these discourses. Based on a deconstructive analysis of focus group interviews, the

article identifies four strategy discourses: “rationalist” discourse, “structuralist”

discourse, “idealist” discourse and “constructivist” discourse. Strategy makers draw

on several or all of the discourses in public sector organizations and the body of

literature on strategic management related to them. The discourses are different but not

incompatible in practice. Rather, they complement each other in strategic practices.

Thus, the article suggests a more nuanced way of strategic discourses in public sector

organizations and provides inspiration to other sectors as well. The article concludes by

suggesting directions for further research.

Keywords - strategic discourses, public sector organizations, middle managers, strate-

gizing.

INTRODUCTION

Today, strategy is everywhere. All organizations deal with strategy, but organizations

operate under different conditions, affecting their understanding of how to do strategy.

The public sector is functioning according to a specific set of principles, which tend to

be overseen (Frederiksson & Pallas, 2016). These principles can be summarized as po-

litical nature with little autonomy to set own goals and to handle problems rather than

taking advantage of an opportunity. There are also the challenges of conflicts between

democracy, legal certainty and efficiency, the prominent role of professions, the number

of stakeholders and the significance of transparency, which involves the challenge of

Copyright: © 2017 Lystbaek, Holmgren and Friis. Copyright for this article is retained by the au-

thors, with first publication rights granted to the International Public Management Review (IPMR).

All journal content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-

NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. By virtue of their appearance in this open-access

journal, articles are free to use, with proper attribution, in educational and other non-commercial set-

tings.

Corresponding Author: [email protected]

Strategy discourses in public sector organizations

International Public Management Review Vol. 18, Iss. 1, 2017 www.ipmr.net 22 IPMR

completing “their activities according to appropriate rules to ensure predictability and

accountability” (Frederiksson & Pallas, 2016, p. 151).

Although many public sector organizations do not exist in markets, they tend to articu-

late their strategies through private sector strategy terminology regarding competition,

ranking, benchmarking, brand identity etc. (Joyce, 2015). However, while in business,

profit is the overriding strategic goal to which other goals must be subordinated. In pub-

lic sector organizations, there are usually several goals, often running into double fig-

ures (Eliassen & Sitter, 2011). In addition, there may be no clear hierarchy for the goals

of public sector organizations. They are often unclear and contradictory because public

sector organizations typically are governed by politicians with differing interests. Thus,

it is relevant to explore how strategy in public sector organizations is articulated. We

explore how public sector organizations’ strategy making is conceptualized with (ex-

plicit and implicit) reference to dominant discourses on strategy.

Research interest in the discursive aspect of strategy making has increased over the last

two decades (Hardy & Thomas, 2014), especially within the diffusion of strategy-as-

practice research (e.g. Golsorkhi, Rouleau, Seidl, & Vaara, 2010). As a general research

approach to strategic management, strategy-as-practice has criticized mainstream and

hegemonic strategy research, which is dominated by industrial economics and a positiv-

istic mindset (Stacey, 2007). Invariably, dominant strategy research involves applying

economic models and running econometric regressions on very large datasets from

which generalized rules are constructed. The strategy-as-practice approach focuses in-

stead on the “micro” level (Jarzabkowski, 2005). Strategy-as-practice researchers typi-

cally argue that dominant strategy research is overly simple and ignores the complex

nature of organizations. They argue that strategy is not only an attribute of organizations

but an activity undertaken by people. Strategy is something people do (Johnson, Lang-

ley, Melin, & Whittington, 2007). Thus, strategy-as-practice researchers are concerned

with what strategic actors actually do and the kinds of activity they carry out when they

do strategy (Jarzabkowski, Balogun, & Seidl, 2007).

One of the important things that strategists do is to use the language of strategy (Fenton

& Langley, 2011). Talk of strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and threats, com-

petitors and capabilities etc. is an important part of doing strategy. Such terms, and the

analytical techniques and tools that accompany them, render practices meaningful and

manageable (Balogun, Jacobs, Jarzabkowski, Mantere, & Vaara, 2014). Thus, an im-

portant way to study strategy-as-practice is by attending to the discursive aspect.

The purpose of this study is to examine the discourses on strategy in public sector or-

ganizations to help managers and other strategists understand how strategy is discussed

and communicated. It is guided by the following research question: How is strategy

conceptualized in public sector organizations? Thus, in this article, we describe the link-

ages between strategy conceptualizations in public sector organizations and discourses

on strategy. Bodies of discursive scholarship, such as narrative analysis, metaphorical

analysis and critical discourse analysis, have contributed with significant research into

important issues in strategy making, such as sense-making, subject positions and power

relations (Balogun et al., 2014), but they have not depicted underlying conceptual struc-



tures regarding how strategy making is given discursive legitimacy in public sector or-

ganizations. That is what we aim to do in this article.

In the following section, we describe the methodology of the study. This is followed by

an analysis of strategy discourses in public sector organizations. We identify different

conceptualizations and discuss how these relate to and draw on discourses on strategy in

the body of literature on strategic management. Then, we analyze these based on two

conceptual structures, which allow us to identify fundamental tensions between the

strategy discourses. Finally, we conclude by presenting directions for further research.

METHODOLOGY

In general, discourse analysis consists of analyzing or breaking down concepts into their

constituent parts in order to gain knowledge or a better understanding of a particular

issue in which the concept is involved (Wood & Kroger, 2000).

As mentioned above, bodies of discursive scholarship have contributed with significant

research into important issues in strategy making (Balogun et al., 2014); however, they

have not depicted underlying conceptual structures revealing how strategy making gains

discursive legitimacy in public sector organizations. Thus, the current study departs

from previous discursive strategy research in that it focuses on depicted conceptual

structures in order to see how strategy making is given discursive legitimacy in public

sector organizations.

As we are interested in how strategy making is given discursive legitimacy in public

sector organizations, we have chosen a qualitative approach for data collection. More

specifically, we collected data from five focus group interviews.

We want to obtain sufficient data to yield such discourses. Focus group interviews are

very suitable for such studies, because of the group interaction and dynamics in the

group, which (if properly moderated) provide researchers with elaborated perspectives

on the topic under discussion (Wilkinson, 2004). Compared with individual interviews,

focus group interviews are more likely to challenge the articulated views, as participants

bring forward issues that are important to them, argue for them and maybe change their

views. Thus, focus group interviews reflect the process through which meaning is

constructed in everyday life (Bryman & Bell, 2011). For the interaction to succeed,

participants should be selected carefully in order for the group dynamics to work. The

quality of focus group data is very much affected by the extent to which focus group



participants feel comfortable about openly communicating their views, experiences and

opinions (Stewart & Shamdasani, 1990). “Naturally forming groups”, i.e. groups of

people who already know each other as friends, colleagues or through a common hobby

are particularly found to be relaxed and at ease in conversation (Bryman, 2004).

Thus, for the current study, five groups of six to ten middle managers and management

consultants working in municipality departments in Denmark were selected for focus

group interviews. The main inclusion criterion for participants of the focus groups was

employment as HR consultant and middle manager in a municipality. Further selection

criteria were “maximum variance” in terms of educational background, years of

employment, age and sex. From the perspective of more conventional research, the

collection of data involved in qualitative research and particularly in discourse analysis

is often viewed as problematic, largely because the sample size is thought to be too

small to permit generalization of results beyond the sample (Bryman & Bell, 2011).

However, since the focus of discourse analysis is language use rather than language

users, the most likely problem for the discourse analyst is that the sample is too large

rather than too small (Wood & Kroger, 2000). Thus, while discourse analysis gives

careful attention to questions of sample identification, sample size and generalizability,

it considers these aspects in relation to criteria for warranting the research and thus

differs from more conventional research.

The focus group interview followed an open-ended interview structure allowing for

follow-up questions that involve and invite elaborations and comparisons (Wood &

Kroger, 2000). The interviews lasted approximately between one and two hours. The

researcher moderating the focus group interview emphasized before and during the

interview that all views, experiences and ideas were welcome, since the purpose of the

interview was to explore the articulation and conceptualization of strategy in public

sector management in its diversity.

Since the current study focus is on depicting underlying conceptual structures and

revealing how strategy making is given discursive legitimacy in public sector

organizations, we have taken a deconstructive approach to the analysis of the focus

group interview data (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2006). Borrowing the idea of

“deconstruction” from Derrida—i.e. a combination of destruction and construction, this



approach involves destruction of a dominant understanding of a text and allowing for

constructions of alternative understandings.

Generally speaking, deconstruction is an approach to critical analysis of texts that

emphasizes inquiry into the variability of meanings and messages as well as the

assumptions implicit in specific forms of expression (Wood & Kroger, 2000). In a

deconstructive analysis, language is not considered a neutral medium of description but

comprises institutionalized structures of meaning that prescribe thought and action in

certain directions. Thus, a deconstructive analysis does not search for a genuine or

stable meaning of such a concept as strategy but reveals the presuppositions and

normative assumptions of specific concepts and conceptions (Hesse-Biber & Leavy,

2006).

A deconstructive approach, therefore, does not follow pre-specified procedures.

Consequently, deconstruction is not a method in terms of a set of mechanical operations

or procedures, as this would reduce deconstruction to a prejudicial procedure that only

finds what it sets out to find (Derrida, 1981; Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2006). A guiding

principle, however, is to look for tensions within concepts. Thus, a deconstructive

analysis concentrates on tensions and breaks in discussions and texts, and on what

specific concepts purport to say as well as what is not said because of being excluded by

the use of specific concepts and conceptions (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2006). By

continuously seeking differences, counter-perspectives and alternative conceptions—not

with a view to suggesting ideals, but to provide meaningful contrasts—it is possible to

identify different discursive strategies in the way in which empirical phenomena are

conceptualized and interpreted.

Consequently, deconstruction is not an analysis in the traditional sense of breaking up a

text into its elemental component parts, since in a deconstructive analysis there are no

self-sufficient units of meaning in discussions or texts. Instead, differences govern the

production of textual meaning. Words can never fully summon forth what they mean,

but can only be defined through appeal to additional words from which they differ. This

is because individual words or sentences can only be properly understood in terms of

how they fit into the larger conceptual and discursive structures (Wood & Kroger,

2000).



A TYPOLOGY OF STRATEGY DISCOURSES IN PUBLIC SECTOR

ORGANIZATIONS

The participants in the focus group interviews draw on a complex network of concepts

when they talk about strategy making in public sector organizations. Our analysis of the

focus group interviews indicates numerous conceptualizations of strategy and strategy

making, i.e. conceptualizations that are cultural tropes which influence the ways in

which specific articulations are constructed in such a way as to provide order and

reinforce a truth (Boje, 2001). Often, however, they are not presented as “chronotopes”,

i.e. as specific articulations of narrative such as romantic, chivalric, idyllic etc., but

rather as an “ante-narrative”, i.e. as a fragmented articulation of narratives that may or

may not reproduce or create meanings in a given context (Boje, 2001, 2008).

In the first step of our analysis, we identify four different ideal strategy discourses. We

label these a “rationalist” discourse, a “structuralist” discourse, an “idealist” discourse

and a “constructivist” discourse shown in table 1.

Tabel 1: Types of strategy discourses in public sector organizations

A rationalist

discourse

A structuralist

discourse

An idealist

discourse

A

constructivist

discourse

Character Rational

activity

Structural

response

Organizational

commitment

Corporate

identity

Focus Internal

dynamic

Structural

forces

Organizational

ideals

Identity

construction

A “rationalist” strategy discourse

A dominant discourse on strategizing often expressed in the focus group interviews is a

story about strategy in public sector organizations as being necessary, as it expresses a



rational response to the dynamic forces within public service. Talking about strategy in

public management in general, one of the interviewees states that:

A sound strategy is supposed to lead the organization through changes and shifts

to secure its future growth and sustainable success. It directs an organization

toward citizens’ needs and wants in the future.

(Consultant A)

In this quote, the interviewee expresses the view that strategizing in an elderly care

organization is a rational activity, because it is—and should be—driven by the internal,

dynamic logic of public sector organizations. Public services typically involve

knowledge-intensive work and high-tech equipment; thus, they continuously change in

both their goals and means, due to changes in professional competencies and

technological opportunities. Consequently, public managers have to make a strategic

effort. For instance, an interviewee states that:

Our elderly care centers are facing changing times. The group of elderly people is

changing and their needs and wants are changing too. Thus, elderly care centers

have to consider the needs and wants of the elderly people of the future and

respond strategically. The centers cannot let things stay just as they are today, but

have to be prepared for the elderly of tomorrow.

(Consultant B)

In this quote, the interviewee expresses the view that public managers in elderly

care centers continuously seek to take appropriate action to reconfigure the

organization in order to make it suitably aligned to its changing organizational

niche. Again, this draws on a rationalistic discourse on strategizing in public

management. Put simply, changes in public services such as elderly care create a

need for new strategies regarding organizational processes, technologies and

competencies. Strategy in an elderly care organization should focus on the



continuous development and effective exploitation of the resources and

competencies in the organization.

This view draws on what we label a “rationalist” discourse on strategy in public sector

organizations. According to this discourse, strategizing in public management is a

rational response to the dynamic logic of public services. What counts as a “rational”

response and a “sound” strategy may be subject to debate, but generally, it is regarded

as a matter of being grounded in analyses of the productivity and efficiency of the

performance of the organization. As such, it can be analyzed and decided rationally, for

instance by applying strategic techniques such as performance measures and evaluation

of competencies. Such strategic techniques are rational in the sense of being objects of

rational analysis, decision-making and monitoring.

This strategizing discourse, then, highlights the importance of a fit between changes in

public services and the internal capabilities of public sector organizations. Strategizing

in a public sector organization should guide the effective exploitation and continuous

development of resources and competencies in the organization. This discourse is thus

very functionalistic, i.e. it suggests that the strategy drives, dominates and determines an

organization. The chain of cause and effect is conceived to be linear and simple.

A “structuralist” strategy discourse

The rationalist discourse described above is very dominant in the interviews. However,

the interviewees do not only talk about strategy in public sector organizations in

accordance with this rationalist strategizing discourse. The focus group interviews also

entail an alternative discourse, according to which strategizing is necessary because of

the response to structural forces outside public sector organizations that they have to

adapt to. For instance, one of the interviewees states that:

For several years now, we have been witnessing decreased budgets in the

municipality sector. And we are expecting continuing decreases in budgets in the

coming years. Thus, our organizations must prepare for this. […] Managers



should respond strategically to changes in the economic and political situation.

(Consultant A)

In this quote, the interviewee expresses the view that strategizing in public

management is a necessary response to the external structures of an organization, for

instance changing economic and political structures. When the economic cycle

generates growth or new political ideas grow—or the opposite—managers must be

prepared for this and respond strategically. This view draws on what we label a

“structuralist” strategizing discourse in public sector organizations. According to this

discourse, strategizing in public management is a structurally necessary response to

external forces that the individual manager cannot influence, such as economic and

political structures. Such structural necessities follow structural patterns, for instance a

pendulum pattern, as structural forces shift back and forth.

Thus, in the structuralist discourse, it is not internal organizational factors but external

structural factors—external conditions and constraints in the environment—that are

considered to be vital. The potential and possibilities of public sector organizations are

determined by the structure of the public economy and the political environment within

which it is operating. The external structures set the limits for what public managers can

do. Public managers must thus understand the structural forces that impinge upon them,

and they must adapt to them strategically. Although public sector organizations such as

elderly care centers typically do not exist in competitive markets, they must nonetheless

consider the external structures in their environment. Furthermore, they have become

subject to marketization and ranking in league tables, which have the effect of a market.

Only organizations that operate along strategies for adapting to their environment can

remain successful.

There is a strong Darwinian flavor here. Only those organizations that respond in an

appropriate way to the changing structures of public sector organizations are sure to

survive. Organizations that do not have a (sound) strategy will fail and eventually die

out.



An “idealist” strategy discourse

The focus group interviews show that not all strategy making in public management is

based on an idea of logical analysis of forces, either internal dynamics or external

structures. On the contrary, in the face of the very strong value base of many public

professionals, especially within health and elderly care, strategizing in elderly care

centers is based on a commitment to specific (professional) values and visions. Talking

about strategizing in public management in general, one of the interviewees states that:

Strategy is about articulating and creating enthusiasm about the work. It is about

having a drive and inspiring professionals with this drive, thus spreading it in the

organization. It is about articulating the values and visions that professionals are

working—sometimes fighting—for.

(Middle manager B)

In this quote, the interviewee expresses the view that strategy in public sector

organizations does not (only) require logical analysis of internal or external forces, but

rather involves ideals, i.e. values and visions. This view draws on what we label an

“idealist” strategizing discourse in public sector organizations. According to this

discourse, strategizing is about relating to the ideas and ideals of professionals in order

to engage and commit them to the organization. For instance, elderly care involves basic

ideas and ideals about care, quality of life, respectful relationships etc. The task of a

strategy in public sector organizations, then, is to provide meaning, not only literary

meaning, but a “deeper” meaning as well, by formulating mission and vision statements.

According to this idealist strategizing discourse, strategy making in public sector

organizations is about managing meaning, i.e. about presenting and promoting a

mission and vision. Public managers do not achieve their strategic goals in isolation.

They need to engage and commit the members of the organization. Persuading

organization members to adopt a particular strategy often relies on the presentation of

the strategy. The character of the presentation (and presenter) is critical to successful

strategies. One interviewee states that:



Professionals have to believe in a strategy if it is to work. Thus, strategy is about

belief—not only belief in the strategy, but also and maybe more importantly belief

in the strategist, that is, the manager. To follow the strategy, you have to want to

follow this person.

(Consultant D)

In this quote, the interviewee expresses the view that the public manager as a person is

trustworthy. Following a strategy is about exactly that: being a follower, being a

believer. Why you believe and follow is not important. The important thing is that you

believe. Thus, strategy in public management in this discourse is basically about belief,

i.e. conviction and commitment.

A “constructivist” strategy discourse

Finally, the interviewees also talk about strategy in public management in a way that is

tightly associated with identity construction, i.e. with creating a distinct identity or a

brand value. For instance, one of the interviewees states that:

Strategy is about showing the world who you are and what you want. It is about

giving the organization a distinct identity.

(Consultant E)

Here, the interviewee expresses the view that strategy in public management is oriented

toward externally, emotionally driven processes of identity construction. This view

draws on what we label a “constructivist” strategizing discourse in public sector

organizations. It stresses strategizing as a means of constructing a distinct image and

identity that distinguishes an organization. Identity construction is tightly associated

with distinguishing or distancing oneself from others. What strategizing may do is

provide an organization or a manager (or both) with a clear identity that is distinct and

distances the organization from others—or a previous one. Such a strategy offers the

possibility of establishing or maintaining a distinct identity that clearly distinguishes an

organization from others. In this case, strategy making is not based on logical analysis,



but on more or less emotional identity construction processes that are primarily

externally oriented.

Strategizing offers possibilities to maintain—or re-establish—some distance between

oneself and others or a previous version of oneself. Strategizing offers the opportunity

to present an organization or a person as “the leading edge”. Sometimes the identity is

simply having a strategy at all. In that case, it is not the importance of the strategy, but

the image of a strategic and innovative organization with the ability to change direction

when the management finds it necessary.

Thus, according to this discourse, strategy is made for the sake of strategy. Public

managers engage in strategizing, because they want to differentiate the organization and

themselves. Therefore, paradoxically, we have seen strategizing in public sector

organizations increase in tempo as differences between organizations have decreased,

and the urge to define a distinct identity and create distance from other organizations

through strategy continuously emerges.

TENSIONS IN STRATEGY DISCOURSE IN PUBLIC SECTOR

ORGANIZATIONS

Having identified four dominant strategy discourses, the second step in the analysis

involves seeking differences and counter-perspectives. In keeping with the

deconstructive approach taken here, we identify two dimensions. One dimension is

based on a distinction regarding the character of the foundation of strategy. This is a

distinction between a focus on “logical” or “emotional” foundations. Another dimension

is based on a distinction regarding the character of the forces that drive strategy

development. This distinction is between an emphasis on internal forces or external

forces. Combining these dimensions as axes in a matrix, we get the following model of

discursive structures of strategy in public sector organizations (see Figure 1).



Figure 1: Strategy discourses in public sector organizations

According to the structuralist discourse, strategizing in public sector organizations is

legitimized by the need to adapt to changing external forces, for instance economic and

political structures. This way of thinking about strategy is concerned with what an

organization should do. What matters is to understand and exploit the opportunities and

limitations in the field. Although such public sector organizations as elderly care centers

typically do not exist in markets, they must, according to the focus group interviews

take into account the structures of the field in which they operate. This way of thinking

is related to New Public Management (NPM), i.e. the incorporation of private sector

principles, such as competitiveness into the public sector (Hood, 1991; Lane, 2000).

According to this discourse, elderly people—like primary school pupils, hospital

patients and train passengers—have become customers. Many public sector

organizations, such as elderly care centers, hospitals, schools, councils etc. articulate

strategies using private sector strategy terminology. They have become subject to

competition through marketization and ranking in league tables, which have a market

effect.

The rationalist strategizing discourse differs from the structuralist strategizing

discourse by emphasizing the internal dynamics of public sector organizations as the

primary strategic concern. According to this discourse, strategizing in public sector

Internal

forces

Rationalist Idealist

discourse discourse

Logical Emotional

foundation foundation

Structuralist Constructivist

discourse discourse

External

forces



organizations is legitimized be the continuous need to develop professional

competencies and technological opportunities. Public services continuously change, in

both their goals and means, due to changes in professional competencies and

technological opportunities. Consequently, public managers have to make a strategic

effort to secure this development. This way of thinking argues that internal resources

and capabilities determine competitive advantage far more than external structures and

market position. It is thus concerned with what an organization can do in order to secure

an appropriate development of competencies and technologies.

The idealist strategizing discourse, on the other hand, differs from the rationalist

strategizing discourse by emphasizing the commitment to specific (professional) values

and visions as an organization’s primary strategic concern. According to this discourse,

strategizing in public sector organizations is legitimized by the values and visions of

professionals. The development of a shared vision is seen as an important strategic task

in order to create commitment and consensus in the organization. This way of thinking

about strategizing is concerned with what organization members value doing. What

matters is that people are emotionally engaged, that they believe in and value what they

are doing, and that the contribution they make brings psychological satisfaction,

something more than simple basic rewards.

Finally, the constructivist strategizing discourse differs from the idealist strategy

discourse by emphasizing strategy as a means of constructing a distinct or separate

identity that distinguishes an organization. According to this discourse, strategizing in

public sector organizations is legitimized be the new terrain, new possibilities and new

realities it creates for the organization´s stakeholders. This way of thinking about

strategizing is concerned with what the stakeholders in an organization want to do.

What matters is to be unique and different. Identity construction is characterized by

ideologically based choices. Strategy is an identity story that articulates answers to the

question: Who are we striving to be, i.e. what do we want to become? Strategizing in

this case is about constructing appearances.

In the following, we discuss, in terms of the main concerns, the linkages between the

strategy discourses in public sector organizations and in the body of literature on

strategic management. We conclude the section by presenting directions for further

research.



CONCERNS OF STRATEGY IN PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONS

This study set out to explore how strategy is conceptualized in public sector

organizations. The findings lay out a discursive structure of strategy discourses that

illuminates how specific discourses stress certain aspects more than others do. Thus, the

discourses complement each other, but they are at the same time contradictory and

competing with regard to how to understand and approach strategy in public

management. This does not mean, however, that the discourses are incompatible in

practice. Public managers can draw on several or all of the discourses when talking

about strategy making.

As mentioned above, the participants in the focus group interviews refer to the body of

literature on strategic management, especially the more popular and practically oriented

parts of the literature. Most notably, the participants make explicit references to the

work of Michael Porter (Porter & Caves, 1980; Porter, 1998) and the so-called

positioning school (Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, & Lampel, 2008). In particular, Porter´s

model of the five forces that determine the success of an organization in its environment

is mentioned in relation to the “structuralistic” strategy discourse we describe above.

This way of thinking about strategy offers some of the key concepts associated with

strategic management in the dominant literature. It represents the strategic management

orthodoxy (Carter, Clegg, & Kornberger, 2008). More specifically, it represents the

dominant rhetoric of economics, which takes the view of the “gnomic present”

(McCloskey, 1985), a present tense in which time and place are irrelevant, as the laws

of economics are considered universal. Framing an organization´s strategy according to

the structures of its environment assumes that the environment is relatively static or

fixed. While this might be the case in some sectors, it is not the case in others. The

purpose of strategy is to secure competitive advantage that will optimize the

organization´s position. This way of thinking about strategy in public management can

thus be characterized as an outside-in approach. An essential requirement for an

effective strategy is the availability of descriptions of the environment and forecasts of

future changes and the consequences of proposed actions to deal with these changes.

The participants also make explicit references to other bodies of literature. Especially, in

relation to the “rationalistic” strategy discourse described above, several interviewees



make reference to the resource-based view (Penrose, 1959) and the VRIN-model

developed within this school, which suggests that the strategic concern of an

organization is to develop valuable, rare, imperfectly imitable and not easily

substitutable resources and capabilities (Barney, 1991). Like Porter and the positioning

or “structuralistic” way of thinking, this resource-oriented or “rationalistic” way of

thinking has had a significant impact on strategizing. However, it represents a

counterpart to Porter´s and other economics-based approaches. It is not external industry

factors but internal organizational factors that are vital. Internal capabilities are what

enable an organization to exploit external opportunities. In other words, competitive

advantage is a matter of superior ability to develop and exploit core competencies and

resources. Strategy, however, is not simply about matching resources to the

requirements of the environment, but about creating environments by using resources

creatively and continually renewing and transforming the organization. This way of

thinking about strategy is concerned with what an organization can do. What matters is

exploiting and developing the resources of an organization. Strategically driven

organizations seek to develop an irreplaceable array of competencies. Instead of

focusing on the external conditions and constraints in the environment, this view

suggests that strategy should be concerned with organization´s core competencies.

Accordingly, an organization´s strategy focuses on its unique, internal resources. The

internal resources produce the products and services and, hence, determine the

performance of an organization.

A third body of literature that is referred to in relation to the “visionary” strategy

discourse is however only implicitly part of the literature. It focuses on vision and

mission statements (e.g. Scott, C., Jaffe, D. & Toke, G. (1993)). This part of the

strategic management literature questions the rational techniques of decision-making

and control, and points to the importance of motivation and beliefs, thus stressing the

importance of leadership, collaboration and organizational culture based on common

values and visions. Their prescription is to paint an attractive vision of the future,

promote a few common values and convert people to believing in the vision and sharing

the values. What matters is having a clear mission and being visionary. At the heart of

an organization is a core labor force that can be more or less committed to the work. A

strategy has to appear reasonable and be acceptable if it is to succeed. The strategy must

make sense and the consequences must be attractive, or at least acceptable, for powerful



groupings within an organization. Thus, strategies are a means of orientation—not in

the simple way that they tell you exactly where you are and where you should go—but

in the way that they can give confidence and commit people, i.e. make them want to go

in specific directions.

The fourth and final strategy discourse identified from the focus group interviews is

concerned with externally oriented identity construction. This discourse is related to the

part of the body of literature that emphasizes corporate identity (e.g. Ackerman, 2000),

strategy concerned with imposing (new) identity. Through strategy, an organization can

present itself. This way of thinking is marked by the use of binary categories targeted at

disestablishing the other—either other organizations or the history of the organization

itself. A recent example of this way of thinking is Tom Peters’ Re-imagine (2003).

Peters presents a “revolutionary” approach as a process of intuitive leaps of

understanding to combat established social hegemony. Peters accentuates a “them and

us” dualistic mentality: “Out with the old, in with the new”—new technology, new

people, new organization, new markets, new customers etc. Such a process of

articulation of binary categories is subject to renegotiation and a contestation of

meaning. Rather than strategy being able to determine an organization´s future, the

usefulness of a strategy rests more in its capacity to provide symbolic manifestations

that frame and shape the dominant identity of the organization, generating distinctions

and discriminations. Such a symbolic order is never stable and fixed but always an

effect of previous and current relations in which actors seek to define their identity.

PRACTITIONERS, PRACTICES AND THE PRAXIS OF STRATEGY IN

PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONS

The linkages between strategy discourses in public sector organizations and discourses

on strategy in the body of literature on strategic management are discussed above. The

result is a complementary and contradictory set of discursive structures subject to

continuous negotiations as to their meaning and application. In this section, we suggest

directions for further research.

First, further research should be conducted to elaborate the preliminary theoretical

framework presented here. The focus group presents a limitation in the methodology of

the study. Future research would benefit from using a multi-method approach, for



instance including observations on how strategy making is given discursive legitimacy

in public sector organizations.

Second, further research should be conducted to elaborate on strategy making or

strategizing. As mentioned in the introduction, researchers in strategy have begun to

draw on theories of practice to re-evaluate the way in which strategy has been

researched to date and to consider strategy as a human activity through the lens of social

practice. As a general research approach, strategy-as-practice research has taken issue

with traditional views on strategy and suggested that it should be thought of as

something that people do (Jarzabkowski, 2005; Johnson et al., 2007). Taking this

approach, Whittington (2006) has developed a conceptual framework spanning micro

and macro levels of organization. He argues that a practice perspective on strategy

should incorporate consideration of how strategy makers or “practitioners” (e.g. senior

managers and consultants) draw on more or less institutionalized strategic “practices”

(e.g. techniques and tactics) in idiosyncratic and creative ways in their strategy “praxis”

(e.g. such strategy activities as meetings and retreats) to generate what is conceived of

as strategy. This conceptual framework can be used to guide further research into the

different notions as well as the linkages between them. Thus, further research into

strategy making in public sector organizations should draw special attention to the key

roles of practitioners. The focus group study presented here draws attention to middle

managers and HR consultants as strategy makers; however, strategy practitioners are a

wide-ranging group of actors who are involved in some way in the process of defining

and carrying out strategy within their organization. Traditionally, the strategy literature

has looked at the top of organizational structures, at the corporate management level, to

locate strategists; but if we take a strategy-as-practice approach to strategy making in

public sector organizations, who exactly are these people and how do they come to

understand their role? Discourse analysis suggests that the traditional strategy literature

is contributing to reproducing hierarchy in organizations (Fenton & Langley, 2011).

More broadly, it suggests that discourse creates or implies “subject positions”

associated with certain power and knowledge claims. However, more research is needed

into both individual´s articulations of strategy and broader organizational

conceptualizations surrounding the notion of strategy making in public sector

organizations in order to gain a better understanding of who is being constructed as a

legitimate strategy maker or practitioner and what this means. This kind of research



addresses such questions as: Who are strategy makers in public sector organizations?

How are the roles of strategy makers in public sector organizations constructed, defined

and reinterpreted?

Further research should be conducted to elaborate on the various strategic practices that

strategy practitioners engage in. Whittington (2006, p. 619) defines strategy practices as

“shared routines of behavior, including traditions, norms and procedures for thinking,

acting and using things.” Practices, then, are forms of behavior with regard to strategy

that have become institutionalized, such as the SWOT analysis and various competitive

analyses, as well as various practices of mission and vision formulation. Such practices

have become embedded in mainstream strategy making. They can therefore be seen as

having a degree of stability and routineness in an organizational setting that legitimates

certain ways of doing strategy, although they may vary in their specific performance.

More research into strategic practices in public sector organizations is needed however,

in order to gain a better understanding of what is being constructed as a legitimate

strategic practice and what this means. This kind of research addresses such questions

as: What does strategy making in public sector organizations involve? How are strategic

practices in public sector organizations constructed, defined and reinterpreted?

Finally, further research should be conducted to elaborate on strategizing as a specific

form of praxis. Strategy praxis refers to what practitioners actually do in their particular

everyday activities as they engage in strategic practices. Strategy praxis is strategy

making in vivo and thus differs from strategy practices by being context-specific

(Fenton & Langley, 2011). This praxis involves interactions and conversations among

strategy makers in strategy meetings, seminars, sessions and informal settings. The

complexity of interactions and conversations makes it evident that capturing all of what

is actually done in strategy making in vivo is elusive (Samra-Fredericks, 2004).

However, more research into strategy praxis in public sector organizations is needed to

gain a better understanding of how strategizing is being constructed as a legitimate

strategy praxis and what this means. This kind of research addresses such questions as

“When and where is strategy making in public sector organizations legitimate?” and

“How is strategy praxis in public sector organizations constructed, defined and

reinterpreted?”.



CONCLUSIONS :CONTRIBUTION AND LIMITATIONS

During recent decades, strategic concerns—along with other private sector principles

and policies—have spread into public sector management and fueled the growth of

strategic practices in public sector organizations. Today, strategy is generally considered

vital to effective and efficient public service delivery and successful leadership. Thus,

management in schools, hospitals and councils now invest much effort into strategizing.

This study’s aim is to examine the discursive structures of strategy discourses in public

sector organizations. It studies the linkages between strategy discourses in public sector

organizations and discourses on strategy. As we are interested in how strategy making is

given discursive legitimacy in public sector organizations, we have used a qualitative

approach to data collection. More specifically, we collected data from five focus group

interviews. Using a deconstructive approach, i.e. by focusing on tensions and breaks,

counter-perspectives and alternative conceptions, we identify how strategizing in public

sector organizations is legitimized in different ways with reference to (more or less)

logical or emotional foundations as well as to (more or less) external or internal forces.

Combining these dimensions in a simple matrix, we can identify and classify four

different (ideal typical) strategy discourses in which strategic communication can take

place. We label these “rationalist” discourse, “structuralist” discourse, “idealist”

discourse and “constructivist” discourse. The discourses complement each other; they

are not necessarily incompatible in practice. Rather, strategy makers can draw on

several or all of the discourses in public sector organizations as well as the body of

literature on strategic management related to them.

The study thus makes a first contribution to an analysis of the discursive structures of

strategy in public management by suggesting a framework and thereby a first step

toward a more coherent body of knowledge concerning how internal constituents create

and exchange meaning among each other. Further research should be conducted to

elaborate the preliminary theoretical framework presented here. First, future research

would benefit from using a multi-method approach, for instance including observations

Christian T. Lystbaek, Aarhus University, Denmark, [email protected]. Jens Holmgren,

Aalborg University, Denmark, [email protected]. Ole Friis, Aalborg University, Denmark,

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



on how the discursive structures of strategy are made available as resources in strategy

practices. Second, further research could benefit from exploring the framework

developed by Whittington (2006), spanning the practitioners, practices and praxis of

strategizing in public sector organizations. Thus, further research should explore who is

being constructed as a legitimate strategy maker; what is being constructed as legitimate

strategic practice; and how strategy making is being constructed as legitimate strategy

praxis. This could lead to a better understanding of how strategy is made, implemented

and discussed in public sector organizations and maybe inspire strategy work in general.

REFERENCES

Ackerman, L. D. (2000). Identity is destiny. Leadership and the roots of value

creation. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publ.

Audebrand, L. (2010). Sustainability in strategic management education. The

quest for new root metaphors. Academy of Management Learning and

Education, 9, 413–428.

Balogun, J., Jacobs, C., Jarzabkowski, P., Mantere, S., & Vaara, E.

(2014). Placing

strategy discourse in context: Sociomateriality, sensemaking, and power.

Journal of Management Studies, 51:175–201.

Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of

Management, 17, 99–120.

Boje, D. M. (2001). Narrative methods for organizational & communication

research. London: Sage Publications.

Boje, D. M. (2008). Storytelling organizations. London: Sage Publications.

Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2011). New business research methods. York: Oxford

University Press.

Bryman, A., (2004). Social research methods. New York: Oxford University

Press.

Carter, C., Clegg, S. R., & Kornberger, M. (2008). Strategy as practice. London:

Sage.

Czarniawska, B. (1998). A narrative approach to organization studies. London:



Sage Publications.

Czarniawska, B. (2004). Narration in social science research, London: Sage.

Derrida, J. (1981). Positions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Djelic, M. L. (1998). Exporting the American model. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Eliassen, K. A., & Sitter, N. (2011). Understanding public management. London: Sage.

Fenton, C., & Langley, A. (2011). Strategy as practice and the narrative turn.

Organization Studies, 32, 1171–1196.

Frederiksson, M., & Pallas, J. (2016). Characteristics of public sectors and their

consequences for strategic communication. International Journal of Strategic

Communication, 10(3), 149–152.

Golsorkhi, D., Rouleau, L., Seidl, D., & Vaara, E. (2010). Cambridge handbook of

strategy in practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hardy, C., & Phillips, N. (2000). Discourse as a strategic resource. Human Relations,

53, 1227–1248.

Hardy, C., & Thomas, R. (2014). Strategy, discourse and practice. The intensification of

power. Journal of Management Studies, 51 (2): 320-348.

Helfat, C. E., & Finkelstein, S. (2007). Dynamic capabilities. Understanding strategic

change in organizations. Oxford: Blackwell.

Hesse-Biber, S. N., & Leavy, P. (2006). The practice of qualitative research. Thousand

Oaks: Sage Publications.

Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons. Public Administration, 69(1): 3-

19.

Jarzabkowski. P. (2005). Strategy as practice. An activity based approach. London:

Sage Publications.

Jarzabkowski, P., Balogun, J., & Seidl, D. (2007). ‘Strategizing: The challenges of a

practice perspective’. Human Relations, 60(1), 5–27.

Johnson, G., Langley, A., Melin, L., & Whittington, R. (Eds.). (2007). Strategy as

practice. Research directions and resources. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.



Joyce, P. (2015). Strategic management in the public sector. Oxon: Routledge.

Lane, J. E. (2000). New public management. London: Routledge.

Lusk, S. 2014. Rethinking public strategy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

McCloskey, D. (1985). The rhetorics of economics. Madison: University of Wisconsin

Press.

Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B., & Lampel, J. B. (2008). Strategy safari. London: Pearson

Education.

Penrose, E. T. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. New York: John Wiley.

Peters, T. (2003). Re-imagine! Business excellence in a disruptive age. London: Dorling

Kindersley.

Phillips, N., Sewell, G., & Jaynes, S. (2008). Applying critical discourse analysis in

strategic management research. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4), 770–789.

Porter, M. (1998). Competitive strategy. Techniques for analyzing industries and

competitors. New York: The Free Press.

Porter, M., Caves, R.E & Spence, A.M. (1980). Competition in an open economy.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard Economic Studies, Harvard University Press.

Samra-Fredericks, D. (2004). Managerial elites making rhetorical and linguistic

`moves´ for a moving (emotional) display. Human Relations, 57(9), 1103–1144.

Samra-Fredericks, D. (2005). Strategic practice, `discourse´ and the everyday

international constitution of ‘power effects’. Organization, 12(6), 803–841.

Scott, C., Jaffe, D. & Toke, G. (1993). Organizational vision, values and mission.

Building the organization of the tomorrow. Menlo Park, CA, Crisp Publishers.

Stacey, R. (2007). Strategic management and organizational dynamics. The challenge

of complexity. London, Prentice Hall.

Stewart, D. W., & Shamdasani, P. N. (1990). Focus groups: Theory and practice.

Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

Thomas, P. (2003). The recontextualization of management. A discourse-based

approach to analysing the development of management thinking. Journal of

Management Studies, 40(4), 775–801.



Vaara, E. (2010). Taking the linguistic turn seriously. Strategy as a multifaceted and

interdiscoursive phenomenon. Advances in Strategic Management, 27, 29–50.

Whittington, R. (2006). Completing the practice turn in strategy research. Organization

Studies, 27, 613–634.

Wilkinson, S. (2004). Focus group research. In: Silverman, D. (Ed.), Qualitative

research. Theory, method and practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Wood, L. A., & Kroger, R. O. (2000). Doing discourse analysis. Methods for studying

action in talk and text. London: Sage Publications.

[last paragraph, do not delete this paragraph]

About IPMR

IPMR The International Public Management Review (IPMR) is the electronic journal of the Inter-

national Public Management Network (IPMN). All work published in IPMR is double blind

reviewed according to standard academic journal procedures.

The purpose of the International Public Management Review is to publish manuscripts

reporting original, creative research in the field of public management. Theoretical, empiri-

cal and applied work including case studies of individual nations and governments, and

comparative studies are given equal weight for publication consideration.

IPMN The mission of the International Public Management Network is to provide a forum for

sharing ideas, concepts and results of research and practice in the field of public manage-

ment, and to stimulate critical thinking about alternative approaches to problem solving and

decision making in the public sector.

IPMN includes over 1300 members representing about one hundred different countries,

both practitioners and scholars, working in all aspects of public management. IPMN is a

voluntary non-profit network and membership is free.

ISSN 1662-1387

STRATEGY DISCOURSES IN PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONS: A ... · Strategy discourses in public sector...

Documents

Transcript of STRATEGY DISCOURSES IN PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONS: A ... · Strategy discourses in public sector...